patent_filings_by_ticker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry all behavioral context. It mentions the response format but does not disclose rate limits, read-only nature, data source freshness, or any side effects. It also doesn't explain what constitutes a valid ticker or how date filtering works. The only behavior implied is that it returns patent data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then provides a detailed JSON response structure. It's concise in wording, but the embedded JSON is extensive. However, it's a compact representation of the response, which is useful. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has nested objects and no output schema, but the description provides an inline representation of the response structure, which gives significant context. However, it lacks information on typical use cases, edge cases (e.g., empty results), validation requirements for ticker, and the meaning of fields like CPY or CIK. Given the moderate complexity, the description is partially incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain any of the input parameters (ticker, limit, format, date_from, date_to). The schema itself has minimal descriptions (only 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates). The description only notes that CSV returns the sliced `series`, which is output-related, not parameter semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves USPTO granted patents mapped to a single ticker by corporate assignee. This distinguishes it from other `_by_ticker` tools (e.g., analyst_ratings_by_ticker) and the response format confirms it returns patent records. The name itself is also explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does and the response structure, but does not mention when to use it, when not to, or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify that it's specific to patents or that it requires a valid ticker.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.